No one has explained to me why White Nationalists should embrace Linux when the fundamental forces of the FSF come from what would be termed logical opponents to the movement.

I don't really care what you use. Seriously. And I can only speak for myself here: I prefer an open OS to a closed source OS, simply because it is completely transparent. The user is in complete control of what he runs on his own computer. This is opposed to running a closed source OS where you have no idea of knowing what your computer is running. There could even be backdoors. Or maybe not. You can not be sure.

To stop using GNU/Linux because the GNU founder supposedly is a Jew (haven't even bothered to check) is in my huble opinion, asinine. You would have to stop using Firefox and any other application that is licensed through GPL on all platforms for no sane technical reason.

Quote:

The GPL is like virulent communism in it's terms, the GPL V3 is even more so.

Is that you, Steve Ballmer?

Quote:

There are alternatives to Linux, it just seems most people aren't exploring them.

Linux is just the name of the kernel, and it was invented by Linus Thorvalds. Well you have at least BSD that is mature enough for production use. They run on a different kernel, but they do run GPL desktops and apps on top of it. Other alternatives are as far as I know mostly in alpha or beta, and then there is Mac OS and least but not last, Windows - that most people are exploring.

Maybe you should run Windows 7 with IE. Oh wait. Microsoft's CEO is a Jew as well.

I don't really care what you use. Seriously. And I can only speak for myself here: I prefer an open OS to a closed source OS, simply because it is completely transparent. The user is in complete control of what he runs on his own computer. This is opposed to running a closed source OS where you have no idea of knowing what your computer is running. There could even be backdoors. Or maybe not. You can not be sure.

To stop using GNU/Linux because the GNU founder supposedly is a Jew (haven't even bothered to check) is in my huble opinion, asinine. You would have to stop using Firefox and any other application that is licensed through GPL on all platforms for no sane technical reason.

Is that you, Steve Ballmer?

Linux is just the name of the kernel, and it was invented by Linus Thorvalds. Well you have at least BSD that is mature enough for production use. They run on a different kernel, but they do run GPL desktops and apps on top of it. Other alternatives are as far as I know mostly in alpha or beta, and then there is Mac OS and least but not last, Windows - that most people are exploring.

Maybe you should run Windows 7 with IE. Oh wait. Microsoft's CEO is a Jew as well.

Steve Ballmer? Really? Ok, look, everyone who gets introduced to Linux thinks it's the greatest thing ever, because all they've ever used is Windows or Mac, and the idea that free and open software is pretty revolutionary. But Linux is pretty much the publicity hound, so it gets the most traction. Did you know that Stallman thinks that people should work during the day and code at night on their own free time? He truly believes that source code should never belong to anyone, ever. Have you ever tried selling something along with the instructions on how to make it? How would you do it? Charge for support, as people have tried in the past? It sounds a lot like the concept of no personal property derived from marxism.

There are many other software licenses that are way more open than the GPL, creative commons, apache, bsd, honestly, have you read the GPL, have you looked into it's consequences? Have you ever written code?

Did you know that Stallman thinks that people should work during the day and code at night on their own free time? He truly believes that source code should never belong to anyone, ever.

When did he say that? Most people who write GPL code for the Linux kernel are actually paid developers. The rest writes because they want to, out of their own motivation and free will. The source code actually belongs to the one who writes it, so the Linux kernel has hundreds, if not thousands of copyright holders. But you can not distribute the work of others under a more restrictive license. If you don't like the license, pick another one. There are plenty to choose from.

Quote:

Have you ever tried selling something along with the instructions on how to make it? How would you do it? Charge for support, as people have tried in the past? It sounds a lot like the concept of no personal property derived from marxism.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. If you want to write closed source code, you are completely free to do so. But the same has to go for people wanting to write code under the GPL. They are free to do so. It is not like the GPL abolishes other and more restrictive licenses.

Quote:

There are many other software licenses that are way more open than the GPL, creative commons, apache, bsd, honestly, have you read the GPL, have you looked into it's consequences? Have you ever written code?

Yes, there are plenty of other software licenses. And that is why the people who write code can choose freely among them. It is ultimately their choice. Not mine and not yours either.

Did you know that Stallman thinks that people should work during the day and code at night on their own free time? He truly believes that source code should never belong to anyone, ever.

That is not correct. The GPL is in fact quite explicit about the ownership of a particular piece of software.

Quote:

Have you ever tried selling something along with the instructions on how to make it?

You mean like how consumer electronics used to come with real documentation years ago? I still own a series of books from the 80s called "Make your own computer" which had detailed blueprints in them, imagine the horror!

Quote:

How would you do it? Charge for support, as people have tried in the past?

It's a workable business model from what I've heard. In fact, I've been led to believe that the initial cost of a pice of software is negiligible in comparison with the so called "TCO" or total cost of ownership, and that support contracts is where the big money is.

Quote:

It sounds a lot like the concept of no personal property derived from marxism.

There are many other software licenses that are way more open than the GPL

Correct, the BSD license allows third parties to use your code in proprietary products withought disclosing their own code.

Quote:

, creative commons, apache, bsd, honestly, have you read the GPL, have you looked into it's consequences?

Now, if I give my code for free and allow people to use it and improve it, does it occur to you that I might be pretty pissed if someone else takes my code, tries to profit off of my labor, but refuses to disclose his own contributions in the same manner - hence the GPL. Yes it's "virulent" yes, RMS is an ass. If you don't like it, don't use GPLed code in your proprietary software.

Quote:

Have you ever written code?

Yes. That makes my opinion extra valid, right?

PS: Apologies for derailing the thread, for the record I think "cloud computing" sucks.